* Higher Suicide Rate. 75% of teenagers who commit suicide are from single parent homes (4)

* More Drug Abuse. Children from father-absent homes are: twice as likely to use drugs (including alcohol)(5) , and 4.3 times more likely to smoke (6) .

* Greater Frequency of Sleep Disorders. Single parent children have more trouble falling asleep, more nightmares, and night terrors (7)

* More Persistent Feelings Of Betrayal, Rejection, Rage, Guilt, Pain. Father-absent children experience greater levels of these feelings which last for years with a renewed intensity at adolescence (8)

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

I was pleased with being part of the March and thank John for his committed passion as he has the best interests of the country in his heart. I was most impressed with Forbes Taylor, 76, Korean War Veteran who was wearing his medals against the draconian bill from a twisted sister Prime Minister. Forbes went onto the stage and stood beside John who impressed as a very articulate speaker. He handed me his sign, which I was privileged to hold. It read;

DEMOCRACY UNDER ATTACK

OUR SOLDIERS DID NOT DIE FOR THIS!

DEMOCRACY UNDER ATTACK

To quote Forbes “ I’m just so angry at attempts by this government to muzzle opposition and media from doing their jobs during election year.”

The other highlight for me was the words spoken by the academic from Canterbury University. He spoke extensively about the corrupt signal this sends to the International community, that is, it is a clear breach to constitutional justice. His analogy about Helen Clark dealing from a marked deck of cards was priceless, however his message has raised concerns that country is on the verge of a full-scale assault on freedom of expression.

I believe school children in the future will spend a whole year studying in social study classes all about the damage the Helen Clark government inflicted upon its constituents. She is a walking time bomb of insanity.

Chuck Bird my friend from Auckland writes on kiwiblog about why I assisted in setting up a table and collected signatures against the social engineering nanny state government. Many people signed and many people spoke about their extreme dissatisfaction with a blatantly corrupt bunch of political criminals.

Chuck said on kiwiblog

Kill two birds with one stone.

I will be collecting signatures calling for a referendum to repeal or amend Bradford’s and Clark’s anti smacking legislation.

If any one wishes to help contact Unity for Liberty

http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/register.html

or download a form and bring it along to the march.

The two issues are very much related. The Clark government will not listen to the people. It is also a concern that the EFB may make it very difficult to collect signatures in public.

We have over 230,000 signatures now so we need less the 70,000 to make the required 300,000.

Clark will not want to be answering questions in a leader’s debate as to what she will do if 80% of the public at election time indicate that want the anti smacking legislation amended or repealed.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

1. J.A.M has been developed by Jim Bagnall during and through his support for over 10,000 Fathers and a few Mothers going through the Family Court.

2. The word justifiable applies to the context of the anger and its source and does not glorify anger in anyway. Justifiable is a word for an acceptance of that person’s anger.

3. The Pay/Fight back scale provides a framework and a structure in which anger exists and an explanation both to the angry person and their helper of how both the energy from the anger can be used and how a person can use the scale not only for understanding their anger but for analysis and action to combat their role deletion.

4. The scale usually should be read or listened to from its base which starts out with description at the Instinctual level and then moves up through anger’s mind treadmills and obsessions to a social level and a place where a person can find outlets for his/her analysis of where he/she is at.

5. At the top of the scale there is a place where standards are reshaped through analysis and where a re formed identity is realized and a higher justification is reached based on valuing people and a just outcome giving new strength through adversity.

Monday, November 26, 2007

An appeal to persons ' to consider registering as Conscientious Objectors'. Sunday 24 November 2007

By Jack Frost Author " The Gulag Of The Family Courts"

Some of you might recall a few weeks ago, I publicised the plight of an elderly couple, both pensioners from Dorset, who were sentenced to 20 months imprisonment ';in Nottingham, for staying in contact with their grandson who was in Care'. That is all they had done. They did not sell drugs, use violence against persons or engage in paediophilia. Quite simply, all they did was respond to a plea for help from their 15 year old grandson. The grandson had informed them that he was being abused in Care.

The grandparents, both pensioners stayed in contact by post and telephone, with the boy who is in council Care. The boy has no other relatives and lived in Nottingham untill he was taken into Care about 4 years ago, when his mother died. He is now somewhere in a Care, in the Nottingham area.

For their pains, to stop the boy having his serious complaints taken seriously, for keeping in touch with their grandson; each was sentenced on 26 October 2007, to 20 months imprisonment. The judge, whose name the public should be shouting from the roof tops, if you hadn't already guessed, is claiming 'secrecy'. So remains unidemtified, for the moment.

This particular judge who wishes to work in the shadows, like the rest of the Guligans, must have had a mild attack of contrition, because the grandmother's sentence of 20 months imprisonment, was suspended. However, the 71 year old grandfather was immediately taken to Nottingham Prison on 26 October 2006. And there he will remain for the next 20 months.The 71 year old suffers from a heart condition and was one of only 2 carers for his 93 year old mother, in Dorset.

Meanwhile, today, the Labour Government headed by Gordon Brown, has once again announced that ' 10,000 convicted criminals are to be released early from the UK prisons, because of a lack of space'. Quite obviouisly, there is plenty of space for UK born pensioners, but not enough space for violent & sexual criminals, some of whom are likely to be illegal immigrants. Remember this is Labour Party policy.

What I also discovered, was that when the press contacted Nottingham Court, to make arrangements to cover the committal proceedings of the 26 October, they were informed that the press were banned from attending and reporting the trial. Though a trial to imprison a member of the public MUST be in public, Must be open to reporting by the press & media and Must include the processes and procedures to allow for the observance of the rule of law & transparency; to comply with the democratic principle; justice must be seen to be done'.

I suspect you have guessed; the court was afraid that the sham trial would be exposed and all those involved would be named. Since the Family Court has been using the excuse of secrecy ' to protect the identity of the child in the case' , whilst actually protecting Family Court villainy from exposure, in a number of cases, and in this case, once again, the specious reason would have been exposed.

Now before the case came to court on the 26th October, I circulated an appeal for those who felt that the authorities had turned their backs on us and were going to continue to gag and exclude the press from reporting just what has been happenning in the Family Courts. This followed on from other cases in which persons had been jailed after secret Family Court trials and after the Justice Minister, Harriet Harman MP QC, had admitted in a Parliamentary reply on 13 June 2006, that she was surprised to learn that about 4 persons a week were imprisoned secretly.

I had suggested that the next person who we were informed about, who had been jailed after a secret trial that excluded the press, would result in triggering our response. We would officially announce our disgust and displeasure, by registering as Conscientious Objectors'. This is not to be confused with pacifists who would refuse to serve in the armed forces. But we would refuse to respond to other government appeals and exhortations.For details, see the link below. As an example: It was recently announced that Chris Huhne MP ( a contender for the Liberal Democratic Party, Leadership) and Dame Shirley Williams( Ex Government Minister and now in the House of Lords) had publicly announced that they would be prepared to go to prison, rather than comply with registing their details for the soon to come into force, Identity Card Bill. Well, we are no lesss justified in withdrawing our participation in some government programme, having been victimised by these scecret Family Courts and the Guligans, who have ensured that the press are not allowed to carry out their constitutional role in a democracy.

And so I have to announce that the case of the Dorset pensioners ( above) has now triggered the registering process. I can confirm that many persons have already begun to register as Conscientious Objectors.

The 2 links below provide all the details. Please read carefully and then circulate widely.

Family First NZ is shocked and disgusted with CYF and Police after failing to prosecute a 21 year old who admitted having sex with a girl under the age of 12.

“It seems incredible that the police did not press charges on a case which borders on sexual abuse,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “The crime has been admitted and the suggestion is that the sexual activity began when the girl was only 11.”

“It is also unbelievable that CYF have not pressured the police to lay charges, have removed the child from the family home, yet according to media reports is still allowing the boyfriend to have supervised access.”

“This case sends all the wrong messages to young girls, and to older guys. Family First totally supports Rape Crisis’ opposition to the treatment of this case.”

“At a time when we are trying to send clear messages about rape, sexual assaults, and underage sex, this case flies in the face of all the advice we are trying to give young people. There is a clear imbalance of power between an 11 year old and a 20 year old and the law recognises this.”

“That’s why the penalty for this type of action carries a maximum prison term of 14 years. This is a serious crime.”

“The failure to prosecute suggests that this law is not being applied, and young girls are not being given the protection they need.”

ENDS

The correct charge is twisted police ; Sexual Violation and Unlawful Sexual Connection with a Child under the age 17 years . If anyone cared , since when do police use the Crimes Act when it is contrary to one of Helen Clark's depraved ideology's', that is , to liberalize New Zealand, so it becomes the selfish utopian dyke Capital of the South Pacific . Children don't matter to Miss Clark , just read the appalling kiwi kids child abuse statistic's . Helen what a sicko job you have done to the sad and confused vulnerable children of New Zealand .

Thursday, November 22, 2007

An excellent media effort in Australia to counter the D.V. misinformation. Well done, guys! Yes the authorities do ignore D.V. against men . The Family Court is not interested in false allegations destroying an innocent father !

The New Zealand studies from Christchurch and Otago Universities have found both genders are equal in numbers when it comes to committing D.V ?

But still no FEMALE assaults male charge appears in the Crime Act ?

d4j

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

MEDIA RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - WED 21ST NOVEMBER 2007

Do we ignore violence against men?

This Sunday is White Ribbon Day (WRD) and the start of the 16 Days of Activism to Stop Violence Against Women. However the 2005 Personal Safety Australia survey found that in the past 12 months almost twice as many men as women (808,300) were victims of all types of violence; twice as many men as women (485,400) were victims of physical assault; nearly a third of sexual assault victims were men; 864,300 men were harassed and 110,700 men were stalked. The same study found that men were almost as likely as women to experience physical violence within the home (half from females, half from males) and were just as likely as women to experience physical violence from perpetrators who were known to them. Yet the WRD campaign focuses solely on the prevention of violence against women by men.

An international coalition of professionals and academics has come out in unequivocal support of anti-violence initiatives, but is concerned that this annual spotlight on violence against women tends to conceal the fact that males are far more likely than females to be assaulted or killed and make up a significant proportion of victims of domestic violence. They are calling on the media to be aware that crime statistics, based on reports to police, are an inaccurate reflection of the extent of domestic violence within the community, as men who are physically assaulted by women are less likely to report it than are women assaulted by men. However, despite this underreporting, 29% of victims of notified domestic violence and 26% of intimate partner homicide victims are men - all of whom are absent in policy provisions. There is very little recognition of women's violence, yet more than a quarter of physical assaults on women are committed by other women. There is also little acknowledgment that violence is most prevalent amongst young people, and is causally linked to social disadvantage, drug and alcohol abuse and mental health issues.

The White Ribbon Day campaign tells us that "violence against women is the product of learned attitudes and norms." University of Western Sydney academic Micheal Woods explains, "I think many people would disagree that Australian cultural norms support violence against women, but would readily admit that our culture accepts violence against males." He quotes a 2001 national survey of 5,000 young people aged 12-20, in which the authors noted that "males hitting females was seen, virtually by everyone, to be unacceptable, however, it appeared to be quite acceptable for a girl to hit a boy". They also found "there was no spontaneous recognition that verbal abuse or a female hitting her boyfriend could also constitute dating violence... however these were among the prevalent forms of violence occurring".

Researcher Greg Andresen from menshealthaustralia.net suggests "international large population-based research shows women initiate domestic violence as often as men, use weapons more than men, that men suffer one-third of injuries, and that self-defence explains only a small portion of domestic violence by either sex. We're concerned that male victims have been unfairly ignored in these anti-violence campaigns and this contributes to the intergenerational cycle of domestic violence. When male victims are ignored, their kids suffer long-term damage by the exposure and are themselves more likely to commit violence as adults."

The coalition of experts is asking Australians to set aside the next 16 days to consider all victims of violence, no matter what their gender, age, ethnicity or sexuality. They are seeking the involvement of the entire community, including government, NGOs, and men's and women's groups, in the establishment of a new national broad anti-violence campaign.

Media contacts:

Micheal Woods m.woods@uws.edu.au Mob: 0414 710 696

Greg Andresen media@menshealthaustralia.net Mob: 0403 813 925

This media release is an excerpt from a larger paper at menshealthaustralia.net/files/WRD07.pdf

When aging anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly, 83, took the podium last night, a few in the packed audience adjusted aprons they had worn in protest, others rolled their eyes and some just sat quietly, waiting for Schlafly to tell them exactly why she believes feminism is bad for America.

Over the course of an hour in which the atmosphere in the College of Arts and Sciences classroom ranged from polite to confrontational, Schlafly detailed her life history, explained her opposition to the defeated Equal Rights Amendment and answered some hostile questions from those who had come with the belief that her lecture, "Feminist Follies: Why Women Belong in the Kitchen," was in itself a folly.

Schlafly, a self-labelled "pro-family conservative" with six grown children, said women can choose whether to pursue careers or be stay-at-home moms, but made clear her belief that family should always come before work.

"I don't think that whatever you do in the workforce is a substitute for children and grandchildren, " she said.

Schlafly, who wrote her first book, A Choice, Not an Echo, about the flaws of the ERA, said the amendment would have wrongly forced women to register for the draft, among other reasons.

"The women pushing [the ERA] obviously did not have any daughters," Schlafly said. "I want young women at BU to get another point of view, since many seem to only have the view taught in women's studies classes."

She said many of the feminists she debated in the 1970s, such as Gloria Steinem, are still repeating the same old arguments today, and are only looking to portray women as victims of an oppressive patriarchal society. She also said feminists are not looking for "equal rights," and instead aim to have women compete only against other women to fill quotas -- and not compete against men as equals.

Using the U.S. military as an example, she cited the lower physical requirements women must meet to be considered for service. She drew a laugh from the crowd with her observation that "45 percent of [women in the military] can't even throw a hand grenade far enough to keep from killing themselves."

Opponents of her rhetoric made themselves known throughout her speech. A group of Boston University students in women's rights advocacy group Voices for Choice dressed up as 1950s housewives in protest.

"We wanted a creative way to show that while we agree with free speech, we do not agree with [Schlafly]," said School of Hospitality Administration junior Christy Nolan, one of the protesters.

College of Communication senior Kasia Zabawa, the president of Boston University College Republicans -- the group hosting the speech -- said she was glad Schlafly fit an appearance at BU into her schedule.

"Last semester, I took a women's studies course, and I wanted a new perspective, so I read her book," said Zabawa, who has written for The Daily Free Press. "I don't agree with everything she says . . . but our job is not to indoctrinate but to get different viewpoints."

Many students said they disagreed with Schlafly's views, and when Every Person Counts Vice President Carrie Chiusano, a COM junior, asked why changes in feminism were not addressed and why the ERA, which was defeated years ago, was featured so prominently in her lecture, applause erupted from the audience.

"Here at a university where women are being educated, it's a little late [to try to talk about giving up careers]," said CAS freshman Alison Huggins. "We spent too much money to turn back."

MEN'S groups are calling for mandatory paternity testing of all newborns as it emerges a record number of men are finding they are not the fathers of children they believed to be theirs.

Almost a quarter of paternity tests conducted by one of Australia's largest DNA laboratory companies show the man submitting a sample is not the father, compared to an estimated one in 10 "exclusions" 10 years ago.

The number of tests taken in Australia has doubled from 3000 in 2003 to more than 6000 last year.

Thousands of men are turning to DIY testing kits - available online - to discover whether they are the biological father while they are still in a relationship and without telling their partners about their suspicions.

Some have brought up children to adulthood or paid tens of thousands of dollars in maintenance to the Child Support Agency (CSA) before finding out they have no genetic link.

Men's Rights Agency co-director Sue Price said: "People's lives are being ruined by this. It is not just the men, it's the children who grow up thinking one person is their father and then find out it's someone else.

"In the future, more and more health treatments are going to be based on genetic technology, so it is going to be even more important to know who your biological father is.

"Mandatory testing would get rid of all these problems."

The DNA Bio Services lab conducts more than 2000 such tests a year from the sale of its DIY kits.

New 2007 figures compiled by the company show that one in 4.5 paternity tests exclude the man as the biological father - a record high since DNA testing began 10 years ago. Managing director Gary Miller said: "The increase is across all social classes and ages - it affects everyone.

"Before, a lot of the work was for men who had been contacted by a woman or the CSA for maintenance and wanted a test to prove they weren't the father.

"Now we see a lot of men in a relationship or just out of one who are just looking for reassurance that they are the father and then find out they're not and are completely devastated."

Under Australian law, the family courts will only order a paternity test if there are reasonable grounds to doubt that the estranged partner is not the biological father.

The CSA does not require proof of paternity beyond a birth certificate or acceptance by a man that he is the father. This means some men pay tens of thousands of dollars through the CSA before finding out they are not the father.

Even if they have brought the children up for years as their own, they are then denied any legal rights of access to them.

Some experts say the proportion of negative paternity tests reflects the fact that the men coming forward already have reasonable doubts, and that of the entire population, only 1 per cent of fathers are not the "real" parent.

Professor Margaret Otlowski, deputy director of the University of Tasmania's Centre for Law and Genetics, said: "I don't think mandatory testing is a good idea.

"I can see the argument from the point of view of creating certainty about parentage, but it would stem from a very suspicious premise and there would be huge implications in terms of relationships."

mfrith@sunherald.com.au

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Equality 4 Fathers International" group.To post to this group, send email to Equality-4-Fathers-International@googlegroups.com

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Thank you for the email John and you have my sincere condolences on the bereavement of your dad . God bless his soul . Kiwiland needs more people like you mate. I hope that a significant number of New Zealanders get involved in the vocal opposition and March against this communist regime like legislation . We must, as free kiwi's, fight to maintain our fundamental democratic freedom of expression in society . How could Helen Clark's scurrilous government ever think New Zealanders would fall for her electioneering racketeering tactics again . Oh no Miss Clark . Not for a second time . In solidarityd4j

Letter from John Boscawen, please note that this email would be illegal under the provisions of the Electoral Finance Bill from January 1 next year.

The Marches for Democracy

Auckland Town Hall to Queen Elizabeth Square, Saturday 17 November from 10.00am.

Lambton Quay, Wellington to Parliament, Wednesday 21 November from 12.30pm.

To members of my extended family, my friends and my business acquaintances

Most of you will know of my political interests, however it is not often I discuss them with you.

I am writing to you about the Electoral Finance Bill and I am asking for your help.

Last Thursday, I launched a nationwide radio advertising campaign against the bill.

On Monday, The New Zealand Herald came in behind my campaign, with a rare front page editorial under the headline “Democracy under Attack”. It is available at www.nzherald.co.nz. Finally New Zealanders appear to be waking up to the implications of this bill.

The reason I have taken such unprecedented steps is because I believe that the very tenets of our democracy are at risk. At a time when the government is giving itself new powers to spend your taxpayers money electioneering, the rights of ordinary citizens to speak out against any political party are to be severely curtailed. New Zealand’s fragile democracy is under siege. The country may never be the same again.

This is not a party political issue, it affects all New Zealanders.

The Human Rights Commission, headed by a former trade unionist, Rosslyn Noonan, said the bill will have a “chilling effect” on the freedom of speech and was “inherently flawed”.

In an extremely rare move both the Commission and the Law Society called on the government to withdraw the bill. They have been ignored. Further the Commission has said that whatever changes are made, MUST be notified to the public again. The Commission agrees with the bill’s motives of openness and transparency, but it has insisted that the public process must be correct.

I am organising protest marches in Auckland this Saturday 17 November from the Auckland Town Hall at 10.30am (assemble from 10.00am) and in Wellington next Wednesday 21 November for a march on Parliament and I need your help to spread this message and make these marches a success.

This is not an issue to be decided behind closed doors by politicians, who think we should simply wait to be told our fate. The Human Rights Commission and the Law Society saw that, and I hope you can too.

I am asking you to onforward this email to your own acquaintances, friends and family, with if appropriate, your own personal endorsement, and in turn ask your friends and colleagues to do the same.

Secondly, I am asking you to attend one of these two protests. We owe it to our forebears to stand up and fight for the freedoms they have given us.

You may never have marched in protest before, few have. However, if you only ever join one protest march in your life, I am asking to join the March for Democracy.

Kind regards

John Boscawen.john@boscawen.co.nz

Additional Notes:

1. Members of the legal profession with black robes are encouraged to come to the front and march in them, as symbolic of the Law Society’s objections. Members of other professions should also feel free to march in uniform to reflect the fact that this law affects all, no one is spared.

2. Members of migrant communities are welcome to bring their national flags, particularly those who have lived under communist or socialist rule, or whose countries were occupied during the world wars.

3. I understand that there will be some who for a variety of reasons will find it difficult to attend. If this is the case, please take the time to encourage others who are able to march.

For those that don’t understand me I’ll direct a post which should clarify the compassion and commitment I have for the country of New Zealand.

I cannot believe the despicable tactics employed at present by this government who are, hell bent on endorsing this unfair EFB, which is just the draconian manacling of freedom of expression. Labour like the control and fear factor elements, as it’s all about political power to them. Liarbour Lickspittles are a bunch of sinister manipulating rort master imbeciles without a moral conscience.

This morning I posted a few thoughts on the EFB on kiwiblog ;

All this talk of election money in a country with appalling child abuse statistics, oh well in New Zealand politicians and their parasitic methods are more important than kiwi kids!

Anyway back to topic, draconian law that challenges freedom of expression!!! Do recent wealthy immigrants provide Labour with ample funding at election time? Ouch, so to stop disclosure of how widespread this practice is, the twisted Clark arranges things by changing procedure and law! Parties will be able to receive donations of up to $9999 from people without disclosing their identity publicly? Why don’t Liarbore just make it law and met all immigrants at the airport and tell them entry has red strings attached – they must vote for the mad Hellion!!

Or we could import slaves, just like the former Labour Minister did? This country is a cot case political cess –pit!

Proud to be a kiwi - no wonder George laughed at the maggot pack .

Craig R Says:November 16th, 2007 at 7:21 am

dad4justice wrote:

"All this talk of election money in a country with appalling child abuse statistics, oh well in New Zealand politicians and their parasitic methods are more important than kiwi kids!"

D4J: I’m going to say exactly the same thing I say to lefty trolls who bitch and whinge that DPF doesn’t talk about X. It’s his blog, and he can talk (or not) about whatever he like, and if you don’t like it why don’t you start your own blog?

And pretty creepy drive-by to even imply DPF doesn’t care about child abuse.

dad4justice Says:November 16th, 2007 at 7:29 am

No Craig, I did mean to imply that David does not care about child abuse. My point was trying to reflect on the huge waste of government time and expenditure regarding this pointless EFB fiasco. Just imagine if the powers that run this country could generate the same amount of enthusiasms shown over this rort and try and help eradicate a problem that is a sad reflection on kiwi society. No offence was intended or directed to the blog owner.Ends

I cannot emphasis how much this proposed legislation from Labour could affect the whole freedom of thought patterns and freedom of expression flowing down the gurgler forever? The abuse of fundamental principles and basic Human Rights issues surrounding this bill are alarming and too monumental in proportion not to be ignored . This farcical fiasco of deception has the potential to cause more confusing catastrophic ripples for the bewildered constituent’s who are still struggling to cope with the grey area smacking law . The legal precedence that will be set if this bill is made law will be contrary to a balanced democracy and against all protections contained in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and New Zealand Bill of Rights. I think the judiciary has the moral obligation to alert Miss Klark that she is ignoring clearly charted rights of human dignity !!

I urge all to help stop this bill in its tracks, as it is just stealth corruption from Helen Clark.

The same malicious comments from the same ol' IP addresses just keep on coming , 4 already in the last hour , however I just delete them as trash only after I have checked the IP address . You know store for future reference if needed ? Sorry about that hinimoo, nih , Sleep, robinsod, Tane , Sam , Dalley and roger nome . Bad luck girls , however , thank you for visiting my blog, as the stat counter just keeps on ticking on - what a pathetic/dumbarse enemy .

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

In case you didn’t know, October was “Domestic Violence Awareness Month,” during which Americans were startled to learn that women are just as likely as men to commit domestic violence. Mention this at a party, and you’ll find yourself standing alone at the punchbowl for the rest of the night: people just don’t want to hear it. Sugar and spice, remember?

Because of VAWA (Violence Against Women Act), American men are presumptively and, therefore, unconstitutionally tagged as predators. Men must face a feminist justice system of proving innocence, instead of being protected by the US Constitution, which requires prosecutors to prove guilt. They have Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) to thank for this -- just ask the three exonerated lacrosse players from Duke University. And, what happened to Crystal Gail Mangum, the woman who was protected by an unconstitutional rape-shield law after she falsely accused them of rape? The same thing that happens to all fraudulent rape accusers: nothing. What do the feminist presidential candidates (Hillary and the men) have to say about this: nothing. How many of you men in Delaware will reelect Joe Biden?

The misandrist climate doesn’t end there. Because of IMBRA, the unconstitutional law that Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) sponsored, American men are considered dangerous to foreign women. That’s right, foreign women in foreign countries now have more American rights than American men living in America. Because of IMBRA, foreign women now have the power to demand unilateral background checks on American men before dating them. Worse, they can do whatever they want with this confidential information. How many of you men in Kansas will reelect Sam Brownback?

The Shocking Truth

Enter the “Taser for ladies,” available in metallic pink for $350 from Taser International, Inc., in Scottsdale, AZ. A news item on Fox News described the latest fad: women having Taser parties, redolent of Tupperware parties, where they get each other to purchase these weapons. Do women sometimes find themselves in dangerous situations where they need protection? Absolutely. Because of VAWA, do women have the potential to fraudently use Tasers, with impunity -- in arguments, in rages, out of jealousy, for spite, in revenge, etc. -- to commit legal assault and battery on innocent men? You bet they do!

A Taser purchaser must register with and get approval from the company. What about training, though? If she uses it, where on a man’s body will she aim it? Is she liable for any harm to him? Is she obligated to get him medical attention? According to the company Website: TASER® energy weapons are not considered firearms — they’re legal to carry in most states without permits (including California). They are restricted from citizen use in MA, RI, NY, NJ, WI, MI, HI, IL, and certain cities and counties. According to a German consultant to the company, Tasers, as consumer products, are currently illegal in Europe.

If Taser weapons are not considered firearms, what are they considered? This presents yet another challenge to our hypocritical, gynocratic “legal” system. I don’t know what Tasers are considered, but I can guess: in the name of protecting women -- translation: getting the female vote -- our male legislators and judges will ignore the issue until men force them to deal with it. This is the shocking truth, folks.

Here’s a scenario to ponder: If a maniacal wife attacks her husband, as so often happens, and he tases her, what do you suppose would happen to him? Ha! How many lawyers would it take to defend him, to “prove his innocence”? Not to mention being pilloried by the media as a wimp (when a woman attacks a man, it is just emotion; let it go).

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

I counsel every man to ask a new paramour, before becoming sexually involved with her, about: her use of birth control, her willingness to terminate an accidental pregnancy, and her carriage of STDs. Now, there is a new question to add: Do you own a Taser? If she does, and logic and perspective don’t appear to be her strongsuits, stay far, far away from her.

Remember Biden & Brownback: they have convinced their Senate and House colleagues to give women the preponderance of civil and criminal rights. They are responsible for creating the Department of Justice’s unconstitutional Office on Violence Against Women. And, they will be responsible for women indiscriminantly tasing men.

There are many things you might want to say during a romantic evening gone badly, but the last one is: “Don’t tase me, babe!”

I refer to your letter to the Chief Justice receive in this office 19 June 2007.The Chief Justice does not have the authority to intervene in matters that are before the courts.

It is clear that you have pursed issues through the Family Court and High court and have made an application for special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Chief Justice cannot assist you with this process. It is necessary for you (as the Court of appeal registry noted in its response to you) to pursue any further applications before the courts in terms of proper procedure and legal requirements. The advice of a lawyer (again as suggested by the Court of Appeal registry) might be able to assist you in identifying the options available to you.

Monday, November 12, 2007

I write in a last ditch effort to try and clear my badly damaged credibility and dignity as a heartbroken father, who has suffered from a considerable travesty of justice.

I have enclosed a recent Court of Appeal document that is frustrating for me, as I have already exhausted my appeal rights in the High Court Registry. On that occasion the judge said that although he had every sympathy for my predicament the essential thrust of my appeal hinges on the contention that the original 2001 protection orders were invalidly made. He directed me back to the Family Court. I did that, and after a hearing it was determined that the six named people remain court protected. Even though I have full time day to day care of one the children , the court in its dysfunctional wisdom will not admit the protection orders were obtained through lies and deception . Why can't judges concede that they're human and capable of making mistakes ? Child counsel lawyers and court psychologists are cruel and vicious liars , meanwhile police enjoy backing the wrong horse? Cops the callous cowards just love a distraught father fighting for his dignity ,because his spirit becomes a challenge for the over zealous unsavoury characters to destroy !

I cannot move forward with my life, as I feel constantly ill because my life has been unjustifiably invaded by unwarranted circumstances.

I request your assistance in helping me obtain a fair hearing, so I can address a major miscarriage of justice, which was fatal recently for my heartbroken mother.

I am the heartbroken father to four New Zealand born children, two boys, and two alienated young girls.

I am on the WINZ invalids benefit with heart and depression problems and I appeal for the Court to show me mercy.

Friday, November 9, 2007

Those of you who have been on our list for a long time are aware that "The Children of Children" Rock Opera was written to address the problems of divorce for both parents and children. It is the story of one father's struggle to remain relevant in the lives of his children.

MadMen & Dreamers

You also know that we have been invited to Australia to perform "The Children of Children" in an effort to help a growing grass-roots movement to change the way divorce is handled by the courts and related authorities.

Currently, 3 fathers a day kill themselves in Australia because they can't stand the pain of being unjustifiably wrenched out of the lives of their children. That's 1095 fathers every year. The current laws causing this outrage have been in place since 1975. That's 40,515 fathers ago. More than Australia lost in World War 2.

On Friday, November 9th in Sydney there is the Australian "9/11" primal scream Media Event led by everyday little Aussie battler Mums, Dads, Grandparents, Children & Families having the commitment, courage, compassion and integrity for change.

We are showing our solidarity and support by broadcasting this good news world-wide. The band Madmen & Dreamers has been feeling Australia 's pain for a long time. We compared the failure and unwillingness of both the New Zealand, US and Australian governments to produce any real changes.

We got to know organizations like the Children's Rights Council who also join the growing groundswell chorus that is an emerging positive Creativity Renaissance Movement for our Children~Parents~Families worldwide.

Australia ' QUESTion ~ "WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR CHILDREN???" ~ is echoing around our Global Village. Every two minutes one of Australia 's precious Children is reported abused . That means every two minutes a part of mankind's collective future dies. For every Child stuffed into a suitcase dead by a disturbed parent , how many go unnoticed and unaided? How many will pass this horror on to Children of their own?

Every Child has a right to both parents. Every reasonable parent has the right to be a parent. Every mother an involved mother, every father an involved father. How many studies does it take before governments finally realize that Children need both parents? When will it dawn on them that's why parents come in pairs?

Parental Alienation/Exclusion/Vilification, whether it be by parental interference or by court order, destroys families already battered by divorce or separation. That's why we wrote "The Children of Children"--to show the cost (in Australia alone over $30 Billion a year) and destructive dangers within this abuse. It echoes as an epidemic dis-ease through the lives of our Children. That's why we are coming to Australia in July 08 to perform at the International CREATIVITY SUMMIT for Children~ Parents~Families in the beautiful Newcastle Region of NSW Australia .

The problem is world-wide. Australia being "ground-zero".

We are joining the likes of:

the Honourable Ann Bressington , Independent Upper House MP, South Australia, who is an outspoken champion of Children and Human Justice Rights. She has a 5 year old son, Tyrone;

Carole Johnson , Gold Coast Qld based and originally from New York City, she is an internationally recognised Aussie choreographer, dancer, educator and writer who founded/directed the worldwide acclaimed Bangarra Dance Theatre {opened and closed the Sydney 2000 Olympics} and founded/directed the peak body Aboriginal performing arts college NAISDA ~ www.naisda.com.au

Emilie Ades, won a 2007 Australian Artist of the Year Award as an enterprising performance artist with her own successful Children's Theatre ~ www.fairygood.com.au ~ and is part of the visionary 'tomorrow' Creativity Campus in Newcastle NSW with the Bohemian Love Theatre and Lovelorn Living Theatre company of some 200 young people recently showcased on ABC TV.

Karla Lee ~ www.karlalee.com ~ is a 34 years young Sydney author, educator, performing artist and mother of two cherubs ~ Faith 2.5 yrs and Hope 4 mths. Endorsed publicly when launching her books at Sydney Parliament House by Barbara Holborow OAM former Chief Magistrate of the NSW Children's Courts who said "Karla has captured the answers to help so many Children and Parents when separation or divorce occurs." She has appeared on TV ~ A Current Affair; The Today Show; Mornings with Kerri-Ann; Catch Up: Radio 2GB, 2UE, ABC, 2BL and Alice Springs : many Newspaper & Magazine articles: and now inroads with New York City USA .

And we wholeheartedly support Edward Dabrowski as an Independent Senate candidate who is the Host for this "9/11" Media Event and is coming from Bunbury Western Australia with ONE QUESTion within his MANifesto for the Federal Elections ~

"WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR CHILDREN???"

EDWARD DABROWSKI

Senior Engineer at BHP Billiton, Australia's biggest Company;volunteer National Director, Children's Rights Council ~ www.crckids.org ~ and Shared Parenting Council of Australia ~ www.spca.org.au ~ volunteer Development Director & CommUNITY Web Master on the International CREATIVITY SUMMIT for Children~Parents~Families ...held in the beautiful Newcastle Region 11-13 July '08;Custodian/Steward with his daughter Zosia 11 and son Josef 9 of the Balingup Acres Seed Farm and the Children's Mother Earth Gardens Project; volunteer co+CEO of the "Lady Liberty ground zero Creativity Center", New York City, USA.

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Talking about ludicrous law that frustrates common sense and often obliterates human dignity take for example the Care of Children Bill. My beef with this spurious legislation is that when allegations of domestic violence or child abuse rear up, nothing requires the Court to make any inquiries on its own initiative in order to make a determination on the allegation. This has opened the door for a gravy train of professionals, while the forced respondent to proceedings is a martyr and his children pawns in the PAS game. The Family Court is a horrible place !

My 14 year old daughter has written an affidavit that I will present to the corrupt Family Court of New Zealand explaining to them how much she hates them after putting her and her younger sister through hell for seven years !!!!

Peter Boshiers Family Court is a Court of Criminals !!

Boys spurn contact with father

By JENNY MACINTYRE - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 21 October 2007

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4245683a11.html

Two young boys have made New Zealand legal history by successfully overturning a Family Court decision forcing them to spend time with their dad. It is the first time such a ruling has been made.

The Auckland brothers, aged nine and 13, went to the High Court to appeal a March 20 Family Court ruling that laid out plans for gradually increasing the time the boys spent with their father.

The Family Court ruling had been made despite expert evidence that the boys had been subjected to psychological damage by previous contact with their father. One expert witness, Auckland University psychology professor Fred Seymour, recommended the children not spend time with their father.

The family had been in and out of the Family Court for the past six years. In August last year the father breached court orders, arriving at the children's home when their mother was out. This was the first time the boys had seen their father in four years and they were left so disturbed that one resumed bed wetting and the other could not sleep.

But on March 20 Judge Laurence Ryan said he was confident risks to the boys could be managed and he ruled contact was in the children's best interest. The lawyer for the children explained the judge's decision to the boys and filed a High Court appeal on their behalf. Justice Judith Potter granted the boys' appeal and ordered their father to have only internet or written contact with his sons.

The Care of Children Act, introduced in 2004, grants children the right to appeal Family Court decisions.

This case was one of the first two decisions under that act, which were released on Friday.

A family law expert said the decisions were significant because they recognised children's rights to express their needs.

He said giving a child the right to appeal was a significant advance in children's rights but there were difficulties in exercising those rights.

"This has happened before parliament has organised support for children and there is no counselling available to help children cope with the pressure going to court puts them under."

The second appeal was only partially successful for the children. Four youngsters, aged eight to 15, wanted less time with their father and tried to overturn a judgement which ordered them to spend some weeknights with their dad.

Potter upheld Ryan's earlier decision that this father should be more involved in his children's lives, but she excused the 15-year-old from staying with her father. The justice also overturned an order barring the mother from sporting events when the children were in the father's care.

Last year the Family Court allowed a teenager to divorce her mother. But the High Court overturned that decision, reinstating the mother's guardianship of her daughter.

Monday, November 5, 2007

Sunday, November 4, 2007

The Sunday Star-Times is doing a feature on men. In preparation, they are undertaking a survey. You may like to participate.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4259390a6005.html

Being a bloke: The survey

Sunday Star Times | Friday, 2 November 2007

From Sunday, we're surveying the men of New Zealand.

The survey is about the state of bloke-hood in New Zealand. It looks at attitudes, values and gender stereotypes, relationships, sex and intimacy, social status and health. Those who complete the survey will be in to win one of 50 subscriptions to these magazines. More importantly, you will be helping us gauge the state of men around the country, good, bad and indifferent. Results will be published in the Sunday Star-Times starting on 18th November.

Please complete the survey from Sunday - come back here first thing on Sunday and click through to the survey site. You are welcome to exercise your right to silence if you would prefer not to answer some of these questions. However, please answer every question you can: the more answers we get the more robust the results will be. Please answer this questionnaire if you are a male aged 16 years of age or older. Only men aged 16 or over are eligible to win the draw. Your answers will be treated in confidence by Phoenix Research, the independent Research Company we have commissioned to do this survey.Phoenix will combine your answers with those of others and only ever show results as statistics. No individual answers will be identified. For most questions we just ask you to choose a single answer. Some questions enable you to represent your views by choosing more than one answer: you will see this when you get to these questions.